FPC Filing Requests Permanent Ban on Texas Carry Bans

In 2021, permitless carry was enacted in Texas. While a permit or license is not required to carry a firearm in the Lonestar State, Firearm Policy Coalition points out there are common locations where carry is banned. On April 16, 2025, FPC filed a motion for a summary judgment in a case they’re backing and seek to have the prohibitions removed.

The case is Ziegenfuss v. McCraw and the original complaint was filed in October of 2024 in the Federal District Court of Northern Texas. Wednesday’s filing asked the court to “grant Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, issue a declaration that Texas’ Carry Bans violate the Second Amendment, and enjoin Defendant from enforcing them.”

This challenge is looking to prohibit the banning of firearms at three different classes of so-called “sensitive locations”:

1. Businesses Deriving 51% or More of Their Sales From Alcohol.

2. Sporting Events, specifically “interscholastic events” at high schools and colleges.

3. Racetracks.

In a release, FPC say they specifically want:

• A federal court declaration holding that these laws are unconstitutional.

• An injunction blocking enforcement of Texas’ carry bans in the above locations.

• The ability for peaceable people to travel to ordinary public places while armed for self-defense and lawful purposes.

The applicable sections of law prohibiting carry at bars/restaurants, scholastic sporting events, and race tracks are; § 46.03(a)(7), § 46.03(a)(8), and § 46.03(a)(4) respectively. Of the three locations, an infraction involving carry at said sporting events would be a misdemeanor, while violating the other two provisions would leave carriers facing felonies.

FPC’s challenge to the law and seeking an immediate summary judgement might seem like an uphill battle. However, it seems possible to get an injunction in this manner at this stage.

FPC made this observation when Texas responded to the complaint: “Texas filed an answer that was remarkable in that it did not expressly deny the core allegations that the Carry Bans at issue here violate the Second Amendment.”

UPDATE: Texas has filed its own motion for summary judgment in this case, which argues that we don’t have standing to challenge the carry bans in question, which the state agrees all violate the Second Amendment. You can read it here: https://t.co/X72s097g0h https://t.co/KQEVam8T7A pic.twitter.com/bdq28qDYNc

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) April 17, 2025

The April 16 filing goes into detail concerning the lack of historical precedent on the banning of firearms at these types of locations.

The filing notes the following:

Because of the absence of historical evidence to support the Carry Bans, see § B(3) infra, Texas may choose to argue that carry can be restricted in certain “sensitive places.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 30. Any such argument, however, should be foreclosed by the State’s admission in its Answer that Texas “forbids possessing a firearm in a variety of ordinary public places.” Compl. ¶ 14 (emphasis added); Answer ¶ 14. An “ordinary public place” does not fall within the “exceptional circumstances under which one could not carry arms” historically. Bruen, 597 U.S. at 70. Indeed, Bruen warned that extending “sensitive place” treatment to ordinary places where people “congregate” “would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense.” Id. at 31.

FPC’s request for a summary judgement in this case might very well be granted. Considering the lack of historical analogues and Texas’ admission of the same, it’s going to be difficult for them not to.

The president of FPC, Brandon Combs, said in a statement, “We look forward to eliminating these unconstitutional restrictions so that peaceable people in Texas can more fully exercise their right to bear arms.”

Ziegenfuss v. McCraw, FPC says, is part of their “high-impact strategic litigation program.” The initiative seeks “to eliminate unconstitutional locational restrictions throughout the United States.“ FPC seems to be creating a roadmap to dismantling these provisions that are not analogous to like ones from the time of our founding. To learn more about this case, it can be tracked HERE.